Fighting new nuclear power stations in the UK

Stop New Nuclear in its tracks

Show the Government and the nuclear industry that we don’t want more waste, more risk and more lies in our communities. We can create all the energy we need from sustainable and safe renewable resources.
It’s not to late to have your say on this – people power can change everything.

WHY IS THE UK GOVERNMENT PURSUING THE NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT?

Against all environmental and economic sense
The Government has now agreed contracts for offshore wind power to be delivered at half the price they locked us into for electricity from Hinkley C. THis power station alone will see a more than doubling of the wholesale market cost of electricity and that’s without the rest of their planned program. Given the levels of fuel poverty already in Britain, nuclear power will make electricity so eye-wateringly expensive many of us won’t be able to afford to have it! Meanwhile, renewables are just getting cheaper and cheaper.. with on-shore wind being the cheapest!
The only willing source of investment beyond the British taxpayer is now the Chinese State – who are seeking access to our grid and opportunities to expand their own nuclear program. Our Government has submitted to their demands to build three reactors of their own design on our shores. The French state, in the guise of EDF are simply seeking further expansion to avoid bankruptcy.
To perpetuate centralised control and expertise via the National Grid, local supply and ownership of our energy resource is being stymied in a tangle of red tape and adverse policy.

PLANNING POLICY UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY

Planning without the people
Changes in National Planning policy (the National Policy Statements/Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Directorate ) were originally devised to facilitate the nuclear new build program, by over-riding normal planning procedures for all new energy projects over 50 MW, essentially removing the democratic opportunity for local councils and residents to have a say in new industrial scale development in their area, i.e via the public enquiry. This process has experienced mission creep and been extended to include other potentially controversial projects like roads and fracking, in effect anything they want to build that people may disagree with. The process of scrutiny has been reduced from up to an average of 6 years down to a maximum of 6 months. The Planning Inspector can choose whether they hear submissions or not, including from technical experts. The final word is with the Secretary of State, who is primarily following the Government line.

THE PROBLEMS OF NUCLEAR POWER

The Environment
The proposed Hinkley C will would take at least 10 years to build. Thereby missing the government/industry created ‘energy gap’ that new nuclear was supposed to plug. They are now falling back on fracking, another damaging extreme energy source, to fulfil projected energy needs that are rapidly being supplied by renewable sources. If some of the subsidies of the nuclear industry were directed to renewables and efficiency measures we could be much further along the path to a sustainable energy future.
Globally, the mining of uranium leaves vast amounts of radioactive tailings and necessitates the trashing of land, the poisoning of water and human rights abuses. In addition, all this uranium has to be transported and processed using fossil fuels.
Furthermore, a carbon footprint is usually calculated with a “cradle to grave” analysis, but with nuclear power there is, as yet, no grave. There is no safe solution for nuclear waste. 10,000 generations will have to deal with the highly toxic waste of 3 generations. Britain has accumulated half a million cubic metres of highly radioactive waste from its nuclear reactors: enough to fill five Albert Halls. This is costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. With new build, this waste problem is predicted to both increase in its level of toxicity and, therefore, costs and dangers to the public
It is also absurd to think that nuclear power will save us from climate change when all our reactors are already prone to coastal flooding, and this danger will increase, as sea levels rise. New reactors such as Sizewell C are proposed at sea level, without any consideration of long term sea level changes.

The Economics
The government has said that there will be no subsidies for the new nuclear build. But no nuclear facility has ever been built, run or insured without huge amounts of tax-payers’ money and rising domestic bills. The reality is that EDF is already €44 billion in debt to the French government. Flamanville (EDF’s current new build in France) has already doubled its cost and time projections.
As for jobs, EDF has a poor track record. A third of Flamanville’s workforce are migrant labourers. EDF has been accused by the French unions of instigating a form of modern slavery on their workers.
Nuclear energy provides only a sixth of the UK’s electricity. We could save this much energy by insulating all our homes. Government subsidies to new nuclear build threaten to drain money away from genuinely renewable energy projects that could provide jobs. In Germany, the renewable energy industry employs 344,000 people and is growing. This is already 10 times more than the entire UK nuclear industry workforce.

The Politics
So, given all these disadvantages, why does the British government still insist on nuclear power?
Germany, Switzerland and Italy, have now halted their nuclear power programmes. The inference then, drawn from the UK’s policy, is that nuclear power has far more to do with politics than with creating electricity.
The UK sits on the Security Council of the UN. This dominant position is maintained by the fact that the UK is an established nuclear power. Nuclear power was military in its inception and it continues to serve the war machine. The production of electricity for civil use is a smoke screen for its true purpose: the production of plutonium and other nuclear materials used in weapon systems.
There is increasing evidence that modified uranium which could only have been produced in nuclear power stations is surfacing in the aftermath of NATO’s wars in Iraq, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. This poisons vast amounts of land and civilians for generations and also our own soldiers. The latest Anglo-French military agreement involves developing nuclear weapons at Aldermaston.

What's New

The group South-West Against Nuclear (SWAN) are calling for an international day of action and occupation of EDF offices/facilities on Monday15th Febuary to demand that EDF withdraw from the Hinkley C project & give up their nuclear ambitions in the UK. On the following day, February 16th cash-strapped EDF will meet to decide whether to continue with their new nuclear plant at Hinkley C in Somerset or not. It could go either way.

As EDF reports that profits were down 25% in the UK last year, and they scramble to find investors to help them build Hinkley C. It seems that even with government support and subsidies, nuclear power is a bad investment. A report by Citigroup [CITI2009] says “Three of the risks faced by developers— Construction, Power Price, and Operational—are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially. This makes new nuclear a unique investment proposition for utility companies."

We urge David Cameron and the leaders of Europe to scrap plans for Moorside. The UK Government is planning to sell a vast area of Cumbria to the same companies responsible for the Fukushima disaster, so that they can build new nuclear reactors. Please don't risk the safety of Europe by turning Cumbria into a nuclear sacrifice zone.

Visit Stop New Nuclear on Facebook

Stop New Nuclear is a campaign to stop new nuclear power stations and is an alliance of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND Cymru, Stop Nuclear Power Network UK, Kick Nuclear, South West Against Nuclear, Shutdown Sizewell, Sizewell Blockaders, Trident Ploughshares, Stop Hinkley, and Rising Tide UK